[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-bvtm-dhc-mac-assign) 00

Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC)                                 B. Volz
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                            T. Mrugalski
Expires: October 19, 2019                                            ISC
                                                           CJ. Bernardos
                                                                    UC3M
                                                          April 17, 2019


          Link-Layer Addresses Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6
                      draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-00

Abstract

   In certain environments, e.g. large scale virtualization deployments,
   new devices are created in an automated manner.  Such devices
   typically have their link-layer (MAC) addresses randomized.  With
   sufficient scale, the likelihood of collision is not acceptable.
   Therefore an allocation mechanism is required.  This draft proposes
   an extension to DHCPv6 that allows a scalable approach to link-layer
   address assignments.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Deployment scenarios and mechanism overview . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Proxy client mode scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Direct client mode scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  Mechanism Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Design Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Information Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Requesting Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Renewing Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Releasing Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Option Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses Option . .  10
     10.2.  Link-Layer Addresses Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   12. Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   15. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   16. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     16.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     16.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  IEEE 802c Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   There are several new deployment types that deal with a large number
   of devices that need to be initialized.  One of them is a scenario
   where virtual machines (VMs) are created on a massive scale.
   Typically the new VM instances are assigned a random link-layer (MAC)
   address, but that does not scale well due to the birthday paradox.
   Another use case is IoT devices.  Typically there is no need to
   provide global uniqueness of MAC addresses for such devices.  On the
   other hand, the huge number of such devices would likely exhaust a
   vendor's OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) global address
   space.  For those reasons, it is desired to have some form of local
   authority that would be able to assign locally unique MAC addresses.




Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   This document proposes a new mechanism that extends DHCPv6 operation
   to handle link-layer address assignments.

   Since DHCPv6 ([RFC8415]) is a protocol that can allocate various
   types of resources (non-temporary addresses, temporary addresses,
   prefixes, but also many options) and has necessary infrastructure
   (numerous server and client implementations, large deployed relay
   infrastructure, supportive solutions, like leasequery and failover)
   to maintain such assignment, it is a good candidate to address the
   desired functionality.

   While this document presents a design that should be usable for any
   link-layer address type, some of the details are specific to Ethernet
   / IEEE 802 48-bit MAC addresses.  Future documents may provide
   specifics for other link-layer address types.

   The IEEE originally set aside half of the 48-bit MAC Address space
   for local use (where the U/L bit is set to 1).  In 2017, the IEEE
   specified an optional specification (IEEE 802c) that divides this
   space into quadrants (Standards Assigned Identifier, Extended Local
   Identifier, Administratively Assigned Identifier, and a Reserved
   quadrant) - more details are in Appendix A.  The IEEE is also working
   to specify protocols and procedures for assignment of locally unique
   addresses (IEEE 802.1cq).  This work may serve as one such protocol
   for assignment.  For additional background, see [IEEE-802-Tutorial].

2.  Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Terminology

   The DHCPv6 terminology relevant to this specification from the DHCPv6
   Protocol [RFC8415] applies here.

   client        A device that is interested in obtaining link-layer
                 addresses.  It implements the basic DHCPv6 mechanisms
                 needed by a DHCPv6 client as described in [RFC8415] and
                 supports the new options (IA_LL and LLADDR) specified
                 in this document.  The client may or may not support
                 address assignment and prefix delegation as specified
                 in [RFC8415].





Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   server        Software that manages link-layer address allocation and
                 is able to respond to client queries.  It implements
                 basic DHCPv6 server functionality as described in
                 [RFC8415] and supports the new options (IA_LL and
                 LLADDR) specified in this document.  The server may or
                 may not support address assignment and prefix
                 delegation as specified in [RFC8415].

   address       Unless specified otherwise, an address means a link-
                 layer (or MAC) address, as defined in IEEE802.  The
                 address is typically 6 bytes long, but some network
                 architectures may use different lengths.

   address block A number of consecutive link-layer addresses.  An
                 address block is expressed as a first address plus a
                 number that designates the number of additional (extra)
                 addresses.  A single address can be represented by the
                 address itself and zero extra addresses.

4.  Deployment scenarios and mechanism overview

   This mechanism is designed to be generic and usable in many
   deployments, but there are two scenarios it attempts to address in
   particular: (i) proxy client mode, and (ii) direct client mode.

4.1.  Proxy client mode scenario

   This mode is used when an entity acts as a DHCP client and requests
   available DHCP servers to assign one or more MAC addresses (an
   address block), to be then assigned for use to the final end-devices.
   One relevant example of scenario of application of this mode is large
   scale virtualization.  In such environments the governing entity is
   often called a hypervisor and is frequently required to spawn new
   VMs.  The hypervisor needs to assign new MAC addresses to those
   machines.  The hypervisor does not use those addresses for itself,
   but rather uses them to create new VMs with appropriate MAC
   addresses.  It is worth pointing out the cumulative nature of this
   scenario.  Over time, the hypervisor is likely to increase its MAC
   addresses usage.  While some obsolete VMs will be deleted and their
   MAC addresses will become eligible for release or reuse, it is
   unexpected for all MAC addresses to be released.

4.2.  Direct client mode scenario

   This mode is used when an entity acts as a DHCP client and requests
   available DHCP servers to assign one or more MAC addresses (an
   address block) for its own use.  This usage scenario is related to
   IoT (Internet of Things).  With the emergence of IoT, a new class of



Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   cheap, sometimes short lived and disposable devices, has emerged.
   Examples may include various sensors (e.g. medical) and actuators or
   controllable LED lights.  Upon first boot, the device uses a
   temporary MAC address, as described in [IEEE-802.11-02-109r0], to
   send initial DHCP packets to available DHCP servers.  Such devices
   will typically request a single MAC address for each available
   network interface, which typically means one MAC address per device.
   Once the server assigns a MAC address, the device abandons its
   temporary MAC address.

4.3.  Mechanism Overview

   In all scenarios the protocol operates in fundamentally the same way.
   The device requesting an address, acting as a DHCP client, will send
   a Solicit message with a IA_LL option to all available DHCP servers.
   That IA_LL option MUST include a LLADDR option specifying the link-
   layer-type and link-layer-len and may specify a specific address or
   address block as a hint for the server.  Each available server
   responds with an Advertise message with offered link-layer address or
   addresses.  The client then picks the best server, as governed by
   [RFC8415], and will send a Request message.  The target server will
   then assign the link-layer addresses and send a Reply message.  Upon
   reception, the client can start using those link-layer addresses.

   Normal DHCP mechanisms are in use.  The client is expected to
   periodically renew the link-layer addresses as governed by T1 and T2
   timers.  This mechanism can be administratively disabled by the
   server sending "infinity" as the T1 and T2 values (see Section 7.7 of
   [RFC8415]).

   The client can release link-layer addresses when they are no longer
   needed by sending a Release message (see Section 18.2.7 of
   [RFC8415]).

   Figure 1, taken from [RFC8415], shows a timeline diagram of the
   messages exchanged between a client and two servers for the typical
   lifecycle of one or more leases

                Server                          Server
            (not selected)      Client        (selected)

                  v               v               v
                  |               |               |
                  |     Begins initialization     |
                  |               |               |
     start of     | _____________/|\_____________ |
     4-message    |/ Solicit      | Solicit      \|
     exchange     |               |               |



Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


              Determines          |          Determines
             configuration        |         configuration
                  |               |               |
                  |\              |  ____________/|
                  | \________     | /Advertise    |
                  | Advertise\    |/              |
                  |           \   |               |
                  |      Collects Advertises      |
                  |             \ |               |
                  |     Selects configuration     |
                  |               |               |
                  | _____________/|\_____________ |
                  |/ Request      |  Request     \|
                  |               |               |
                  |               |     Commits configuration
                  |               |               |
     end of       |               | _____________/|
     4-message    |               |/ Reply        |
     exchange     |               |               |
                  |    Initialization complete    |
                  |               |               |
                  .               .               .
                  .               .               .
                  |   T1 (Renewal) Timer Expires  |
                  |               |               |
     2-message    | _____________/|\_____________ |
     exchange     |/ Renew        |  Renew       \|
                  |               |               |
                  |               | Commits extended lease(s)
                  |               |               |
                  |               | _____________/|
                  |               |/ Reply        |
                  .               .               .
                  .               .               .
                  |               |               |
                  |      Graceful shutdown        |
                  |               |               |
     2-message    | _____________/|\_____________ |
     exchange     |/ Release      |  Release     \|
                  |               |               |
                  |               |         Discards lease(s)
                  |               |               |
                  |               | _____________/|
                  |               |/ Reply        |
                  |               |               |
                  v               v               v





Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   Figure 1: Timeline diagram of the messages exchanged between a client
      and two servers for the typical lifecycle of one or more leases

   Confirm, Decline, and Information-Request messages are not used in
   link-layer address assignment.

   Clients implementing this mechanism SHOULD use the Rapid Commit
   option as specified in Section 5.1 and 18.2.1 of [RFC8415].

   An administrator may make the address assignment permanent by
   specifying use of infinite lifetimes, as defined in Section 7.7 of
   [RFC8415].  An administrator may also the disable the need for the
   renewal mechanism by setting the T1 and T2 values to infinity.

   Devices supporting this proposal MAY support reconfigure mechanism,
   as defined in Section 18.2.11 of [RFC8415].  If supported by both
   server and client, this mechanism allows the administrator to
   immediately notify clients that the configuration has changed and
   triggers retrieval of relevant changes immediately, rather than after
   T1 timer elapses.  Since this mechanism requires implementation of
   Reconfigure Key Authentication Protocol (See Section 20.4 of
   [RFC8415]), small footprint devices may chose to not support it.

   DISCUSSION: A device may send its link-layer address in a LLADDR
   option to ask the server to register that address to the client (if
   available), making the assignment permanent for the lease duration.
   The client MUST be prepared to use a different address if the server
   choses not to honor its hint.

5.  Design Assumptions

   One of the essential aspects of this mechanism is its cumulative
   nature, especially in the hypervisor scenario.  The server-client
   relationship does not look like other DHCP transactions.  This is
   especially true in the hypervisor scenario.  In a typical
   environment, there would be one server and a rather small number of
   hypervisors, possibly even only one.  However, over time the number
   of MAC addresses requested by the hypervisor(s) will likely increase
   as new VMs are spawned.

   Another aspect crucial for efficient design is the observation that a
   single client acting as hypervisor will likely use thousands of
   addresses.  Therefore an approach similar to what is used for address
   or prefix assignment (IA container with all assigned addresses
   listed, one option for each address) would not work well.  Therefore
   the mechanism should operate on address blocks, rather than single
   values.  A single address can be treated as an address block with
   just one address.



Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   The DHCPv6 mechanisms are reused to large degree, including message
   and option formats, transmission mechanisms, relay infrastructure and
   others.  However, a device wishing to support only link-layer address
   assignment is not required to support full DHCPv6.  In other words,
   the device may support only assignment of link-layer addresses, but
   not IPv6 addresses or prefixes.

6.  Information Encoding

   A client MUST send a LLADDR option encapsulated in a IA_LL option to
   specify the link-layer-type and link-layer-len values.  For link-
   layer-type 1 (Ethernet / IEEE 802 48-bit MAC addresses), a client
   sets the link-layer-address field to:

   1.  00:00:00:00:00:00 (all zeroes) if the client has no hint as to
       the starting address of the unicast address block.  This address
       has the IEEE 802 individual/group bit set to 0 (individual).

   3.  Any other value to request a specific block of address starting
       with the specified address

   A client sets the extra-addresses field to either 0 for a single
   address or to the size of the requested address block minus 1.

   A client SHOULD set the valid-lifetime field to 0 (as it is ignored
   by the server).

7.  Requesting Addresses

   The link-layer addresses are assigned in blocks.  The smallest block
   is a single address.  To request an assignment, the client sends a
   Solicit message with a IA_LL option in the message.  The IA_LL option
   MUST contain a LLADDR option as specified in Section 6.

   The server, upon receiving a IA_LL option, inspects its content and
   may offer an address or addresses for each LLADDR option according to
   its policy.  The server MAY take into consideration the address block
   requested by the client in the LLADDR option.  However, the server
   MAY chose to ignore some or all parameters of the requested address
   block.  In particular, the server may send a different starting
   address than requested, or grant a smaller number of addresses than
   requested.  The server sends back an Advertise message an IA_LL
   option containing an LLADDR option that specifies the addresses being
   offered.  If the server is unable to provide any addresses it MUST
   return the IA_LL option containing a Status Code option (see
   Section 21.13 of [RFC8415]) with status set to NoAddrsAvail.





Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   The client MUST be able to handle a response that contains an address
   or addresses different than those requested.

   The client waits for available servers to send Advertise responses
   and picks one server as defined in Section 18.2.9 of [RFC8415].  The
   client then sends a Request message that includes the IA_LL container
   option with the LLADDR option copied from the Advertise message sent
   by the chosen server.

   Upon reception of a Request message with IA_LL container option, the
   server assigns requested addresses.  The server MAY alter the
   allocation at this time.  It then generates and sends a Reply message
   back to the client.

   Upon receiving a Reply message, the client parses the IA_LL container
   option and may start using all provided addresses.  It MUST restart
   its T1 and T2 timers using the values specified in the IA_LL option.

   The client MUST be able to handle a Reply message that contains an
   address or addresses different than those requested.

   A client that has included a Rapid Commit option in the Solicit, may
   receive a Reply in response to the Solicit and skip the Advertise and
   Request steps above (see Section 18.2.1 of [RFC8415]).

8.  Renewing Addresses

   Address renewals follow the normal DHCPv6 renewals processing
   described in Section 18.2.4 of [RFC8415].  Once the T1 timer elapses,
   the client starts sending Renew messages with the IA_LL option
   containing a LLADDR option for the address block being renewed.  The
   server responds with a Reply message that contains the renewed
   address block.  The server SHOULD NOT alter the address block being
   renewed, unless its policy has changed.  The server MUST NOT shrink
   or expand the address block - once a block is assigned and has a non-
   zero valid lifetime, its size, starting address, and ending address
   MUST NOT change.

   If the requesting client needs additional MAC addresses -- e.g., in
   the hypervisor scenario because addresses need to be assigned to new
   VMs -- the simpler approach is for the requesting device to keep the
   address blocks as atomic once "leased".  Therefore, if a client wants
   more addresses at a later stage, it SHOULD send an IA_LL option with
   a different IAID to create another "container" for more addresses.

   If the client is unable to Renew before the T2 timer elapses, it
   starts sending Rebind messages as described in 18.2.5 of [RFC8415].




Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


9.  Releasing Addresses

   The client may decide to release a leased address block.  A client
   MUST release the whole block in its entirety.  A client releases an
   address block by sending a Release message that includes the IA_LL
   option containing the LLADDR option for the address block to release.
   The Release transmission mechanism is described in Section 18.2.7 of
   [RFC8415].

10.  Option Definitions

   This mechanism uses an approach similar to the existing mechanisms in
   DHCP.  There is one container option (the IA_LL option) that contains
   the actual link-layer address or addresses, represented by an LLADDR
   option.  Each such option represents an address block, which is
   expressed as a first address with a number that specifies how many
   additional addresses are included.

10.1.  Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses Option

   The Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses option (IA_LL
   option) is used to carry one or more IA_LL options, the parameters
   associated with the IA_LL, and the address blocks associated with the
   IA_LL.

   The format of the IA_LL option is:

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          OPTION_IA_LL         |          option-len           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        IAID (4 octets)                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          T1 (4 octets)                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          T2 (4 octets)                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      .                                                               .
      .                         IA_LL-options                         .
      .                                                               .
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 2: IA_LL Option Format

   option-code     OPTION_IA_LL (tbd1).

   option-len      12 + length of IA_LL-options field.





Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   IAID            The unique identifier for this IA_LL; the IAID must
                   be unique among the identifiers for all of this
                   client's IA_LLs.  The number space for IA_LL IAIDs is
                   separate from the number space for other IA option
                   types (i.e., IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD).  A four octets
                   long field.

   T1              The time at which the client should contact the
                   server from which the addresses in the IA_LL were
                   obtained to extend the valid lifetime of the
                   addresses assigned to the IA_LL; T1 is a time
                   duration relative to the current time expressed in
                   units of seconds.  A four octets long field.

   T2              The time at which the client should contact any
                   available server to extend the valid lifetime of the
                   addresses assigned to the IA_LL; T2 is a time
                   duration relative to the current time expressed in
                   units of seconds.  A four octets long field.

   IA_LL-options   Options associated with this IA_LL.  A variable
                   length field (12 octets less than the value in the
                   option-len field).

   An IA_LL option may only appear in the options area of a DHCP
   message.  A DHCP message may contain multiple IA_LL options (though
   each must have a unique IAID).

   The status of any operations involving this IA_LL is indicated in a
   Status Code option (see Section 21.13 of [RFC8415]) in the IA_LL-
   options field.

   Note that an IA_LL has no explicit "lifetime" or "lease length" of
   its own.  When the valid lifetimes of all of the addresses in an
   IA_LL have expired, the IA_LL can be considered as having expired.
   T1 and T2 are included to give servers explicit control over when a
   client recontacts the server about a specific IA_LL.

   In a message sent by a client to a server, the T1 and T2 fields
   SHOULD be set to 0.  The server MUST ignore any values in these
   fields in messages received from a client.

   In a message sent by a server to a client, the client MUST use the
   values in the T1 and T2 fields for the T1 and T2 times, unless those
   values in those fields are 0.  The values in the T1 and T2 fields are
   the number of seconds until T1 and T2.





Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   As per Section 7.7 of [RFC8415]), the value 0xffffffff is taken to
   mean "infinity" and should be used carefully.

   The server selects the T1 and T2 times to allow the client to extend
   the lifetimes of any address block in the IA_LL before the lifetimes
   expire, even if the server is unavailable for some short period of
   time.  Recommended values for T1 and T2 are .5 and .8 times the
   shortest valid lifetime of the address blocks in the IA that the
   server is willing to extend, respectively.  If the "shortest" valid
   lifetime is 0xffffffff ("infinity"), the recommended T1 and T2 values
   are also 0xffffffff.  If the time at which the addresses in an IA_LL
   are to be renewed is to be left to the discretion of the client, the
   server sets T1 and T2 to 0.  The client MUST follow the rules defined
   in Section 14.2 in [RFC8415].

   If a client receives an IA_LL with T1 greater than T2, and both T1
   and T2 are greater than 0, the client discards the IA_LL option and
   processes the remainder of the message as though the server had not
   included the invalid IA_LL option.

10.2.  Link-Layer Addresses Option

   The Link-Layer Addresses option is used to specify an address block
   associated with a IA_LL.  The option must be encapsulated in the
   IA_LL-options field of an IA_LL option.  The LLaddr-options fields
   encapsulates those options that are specific to this address block.

   The format of the Link-Layer Addresses option is:























Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          OPTION_LLADDR        |          option-len           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       link-layer-type         |        link-layer-len         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     link-layer-address                        |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      extra-addresses                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      valid-lifetime                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   .                                                               .
   .                      LLaddr-options                           .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 3: LLADDR Option Format

   option-code     OPTION_LLADDR (tbd2).

   option-len      12 + link-layer-len field (typically 6) + length of
                   LLaddr-options field.  Assuming a typical link-layer
                   address of 6 is used and there are no extra options,
                   length should be equal to 18.

   link-layer-type The link-layer type MUST be a valid hardware type
                   assigned by the IANA, as described in [RFC5494].  The
                   type is stored in network byte order.

   link-layer-len  Specifies the length of the link-layer-address field
                   (typically 6, for a link-layer-type of 1 (Ethernet)).
                   A two octets long field.

   link-layer-address  Specifies the link-layer address that is being
                   requested or a special value to request any address.
                   For a link-layer type of 1 (Ethernet / IEEE 802
                   48-bit MAC addresses), see Section 6 for details on
                   these values.  This value can be only sent by a
                   client that requests a new block.  In responses from
                   a server, this value specifies the first address
                   allocated.

   extra-addresses Number of additional addresses that follow address
                   specified in link-layer-address.  For requesting a



Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


                   single address, use 0.  For example: link-layer-
                   address: 02:04:06:08:0a and extra-addresses 3
                   designates a block of 4 addresses, starting from
                   02:04:06:08:0a (inclusive) and ending with
                   02:04:06:08:0d (inclusive).  In responses from a
                   server, this value specifies the number of additional
                   addresses allocated.  A four octets long field.

   valid-lifetime  The valid lifetime for the address(es) in the option,
                   expressed in units of seconds.  A four octets long
                   field.

   LLaddr-options  any encapsulated options that are specific to this
                   particular address block.  Currently there are no
                   such options defined, but they may appear in the
                   future.

   In a message sent by a client to a server, the valid lifetime field
   SHOULD be set to 0.  The server MUST ignore any received value.

   In a message sent by a server to a client, the client MUST use the
   value in the valid lifetime field for the valid lifetime for the
   address block.  The value in the valid lifetime field is the number
   of seconds remaining in the lifetime.

   As per Section 7.7 of [RFC8415], the valid lifetime of 0xffffffff is
   taken to mean "infinity" and should be used carefully.

   More than one LLADDR option can appear in an IA_LL option.

11.  Client Behavior

   TODO: We need start this section by clearly defining what 'client'
   means in this context (either hypervisor acting on behalf of the
   client to be spawned or the IOT device acting on its own behalf).

12.  Server Behavior

   TODO: Need to describe server operation.  Likely also recommend
   assigning MAC addresses from an appropriate quadrant (see Appendix).

13.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is kindly requested to assign new value for options OPTION_LL
   (tbd1) and OPTION_LLADDR (tbd2) and add those values to the DHCPv6
   Option Codes registry maintained at http://www.iana.org/assignments/
   dhcpv6-parameters.




Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


14.  Security Considerations

   See [RFC8415] for the DHCPv6 security considerations.

   TODO: Do we need more?

15.  Privacy Considerations

   See [RFC8415] for the DHCPv6 privacy considerations.

   For a client requesting a link-layer address directly from a server,
   as the link-layer address assigned to a client will likely be used by
   the client to communicate on the link, the address will be exposed to
   those able to listen in on this communication.  For those peers on
   the link that are able to listen in on the DHCPv6 exchange, they
   would also be able to correlate the client's identity (based on the
   DUID used) with the assigned address.  Additional mechanisms, such as
   the ones described in [RFC7844] can also be used.

   TODO: Do we need more?

16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8415]  Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
              Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
              "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
              RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.

16.2.  Informative References

   [IEEE-802-Tutorial]
              Thaler, P., "Emerging IEEE 802 Work on MAC Addressing",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/materials/
              slides-96-edu-ieee802work-0/>.





Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   [IEEE-802.11-02-109r0]
              Edney, J., Haverinen, H., Honkanen, J-P., and P. Orava,
              "Temporary MAC address for anonymity",
              <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/02/11-02-0109-00-000i-
              temporary-mac-address-for-anonymity.ppt>.

   [IEEEStd802c-2017]
              IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture,
              Amendment 2: Local Medium Access Control (MAC) Address
              Usage, IEEE Std 802c-2017".

   [RFC2464]  Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
              Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.

   [RFC5494]  Arkko, J. and C. Pignataro, "IANA Allocation Guidelines
              for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)", RFC 5494,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5494, April 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5494>.

   [RFC7844]  Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
              Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.

Appendix A.  IEEE 802c Summary

   This appendix provides a brief summary of IEEE802c from
   [IEEEStd802c-2017].

   The original IEEE 802 specifications assigned half of the 48-bit MAC
   address space to local use -- these addresses have the U/L bit set to
   1 and are locally administered with no imposed structure.

   In 2017, the IEEE issued the 802c specification which defines a new
   "optional Structured Local Address Plan (SLAP) that specifies
   different assignment approaches in four specified regions of the
   local MAC address space."  Under this plan, there are 4 SLAP
   quadrants that use different assignment policies.

   The first octet of the MAC address Z and Y bits define the quadrant
   for locally assigned addresses (X-bit is 1).  In IEEE representation,
   these bits are as follows:







Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


       LSB                MSB
       M  X  Y  Z  -  -  -  -
       |  |  |  |
       |  |  |  +------------ SLAP Z-bit
       |  |  +--------------- SLAP Y-bit
       |  +------------------ X-bit (U/L) = 1 for locally assigned
       +--------------------- M-bit (I/G) (unicast/group)

                            Figure 4: SLAP Bits

   The SLAP quadrants are:

   +----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+----------------+
   | Quadrant | Y-bit | Z-bit | Local Identifier Type | Local          |
   |          |       |       |                       | Identifier     |
   +----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+----------------+
   |       01 | 0     | 1     | Extended Local        | ELI            |
   |       11 | 1     | 1     | Standard Assigned     | SAI            |
   |       00 | 0     | 0     | Administratively      | AAI            |
   |          |       |       | Assigned              |                |
   |       10 | 1     | 0     | Reserved              | Reserved       |
   +----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+----------------+

                              SLAP Quadrants

   Extended Local Identifier (ELI) derived MAC addresses are based on an
   assigned Company ID (CID), which is 24-bits (including the M, X, Y,
   and Z bits) for 48-bit MAC addresses.  This leaves 24-bits for the
   locally assigned address for each CID for unicast (M-bit = 0) and
   also for multicast (M-bit = 1).  The CID is assigned by the IEEE RA.

   Standard Assigned Identifier (SAI) derived MAC addresses are assigned
   by a protocol specified in an IEEE 802 standard.  For 48-bit MAC
   addresses, 44 bits are available.  Multiple protocols for assigning
   SAIs may be specified in IEEE standards.  Coexistence of multiple
   protocols may be supported by limiting the subspace available for
   assignment by each protocol.

   Administratively Assigned Identifier (AAI) derived MAC addresses are
   assigned locally.  Administrators manage the space as needed.  Note
   that multicast IPv6 packets ([RFC2464]) use a destination address
   starting in 33-33 and this falls within this space and therefore
   should not be used to avoid conflict with IPv6 multicast addresses.
   For 48-bit MAC addresses, 44 bits are available.

   The last quadrant is reserved for future use.  While this quadrant
   may also be used for AAI space, administrators should be aware that




Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment        April 2019


   future specifications may define alternate uses that could be
   incompatible.

Authors' Addresses

   Bernie Volz
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Ave
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   USA

   Email: volz@cisco.com


   Tomek Mrugalski
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com


   Carlos J. Bernardos
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91624 6236
   Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/



















Volz, et al.            Expires October 19, 2019               [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/